Electronic ID/VA - Convenience for fraudsters?

birkee

opinions4u wrote: »

The data I've seen shows that those accounts electronically verified are less likely to suffer fraud or unauthorised overdraft.

I've not analysed the data subsets within, but at the highest level it suggests electronic verification is a positive thing that reduces risks to the customer and the bank.

YES! As a second line of defence, not a preliminary identification.

noh

birkee wrote: »

YES! As a second line of defence, not a preliminary identification.

Upon what facts do you base that assertion?

noh

Mishomeister wrote: »

Well, you could've set up a Royal mail redirection service, if you know that person is away for some time(neighbour went on a cruise for ex.) and yet again Royal mail is happy with an electrinic id ...............
.

Most electronic verification processes check against the Royal Mail redirection datatabase and will flag up a redirection.
They also check multiple databases for address and date of birth information plus other databases such as shareholder registers. They may also check driving licence or passport numbers.
They check against CAIS/Insight/SHARE.

Multiple matches of address and date of birth are required to pass.

Many use challenge questions such as "what is the credit limit of the credit card account you opened in March 2009"

Most financial organisations appear to use electronic verification in the first instance and only if that fails do they require extra physical evidence.

It appears to me the checks done during the electronic verification process are more stringent than those that are done if only physical evidence is required.

So, in my opinion, it serves a very useful purpose and is more effective in combating fraud than only having a paper based system.

The two methods compliment each other. The physical ID verification method being used to provide additional information when the electronic one has flagged a fail.

ChiefGrasscutter

noh wrote: »

Most electronic verification processes check against the Royal Mail redirection datatabase and will flag up a redirection.
They also check multiple databases for address and date of birth information plus other databases such as shareholder registers. They may also check driving licence or passport numbers.
They check against CAIS/Insight/SHARE.
.

They must also check the landline phone records database - as I'm ex directory so it fails every time and as a result ALWAYS have to send in ID by post.

noh

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

They must also check the landline phone records database - as I'm ex directory so it fails every time and as a result ALWAYS have to send in ID by post.

Yes they do check against the telephone directory.

opinions4u

birkee wrote: »

YES! As a second line of defence, not a preliminary identification.

Most new accounts are opened by existing customers of a bank who can be verified against their existing relationship with that bank. While this is done electronically, I wasn't referring to this type of verification.

New to bank customers verified electronically via third parties have a lower risk of being fraudulent accounts, a lower risk of being used for money laundering and a lower risk of running up unauthorised debts.

As I stated, I haven't studied the facts beyond these headlines. There may be other information below the surface that says electronic verification in certain circumstances is flawed. I'm not aware of it though.

Overall, it's a better system of identifying a customer than demanding personal visits to branch to produce documents (which could easily be forged). Quicker for bank and customer and seemingly more awkward for fraudsters to take advantage of.

Do you have anything of substance to suggest otherwise?

They must also check the landline phone records database - as I'm ex directory so it fails every time and as a result ALWAYS have to send in ID by post.

I'm ex-directory but never had a problem.

olly300

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

They must also check the landline phone records database - as I'm ex directory so it fails every time and as a result ALWAYS have to send in ID by post.

It may be your postcode.

If you have a postcode that is know for being dodgy for a variety of reasons, then you will be asked to verify your ID.

I refuse to send original ID in by post to any financial institution as it can get lost. I always going in personally even if the journey takes a long time.

As considering the cards I've had to cancel and credit cards family members have had mysterious transactions on I know it's not Royal Mail who are the culprits.

Edited to say: I'm ex-directory also.

DCFC79

I dont see a problem with the way its done, applied for accounts, credit cards and been fine

ChiefGrasscutter

Interesting, I'd assumed the ex-directory reason was the reason for the problem I always get.
It won't be a suspect post code - this area is known for not being 'short of a bob or two'!

As a result I merely wearily send off the certified paper copies of the information all of which is already easily available to them via my credit record with experian etc----which all seems a bit pointless.

Perhaps I'll stat putting in formal complaints in future and see if I can get somewhere towards establishing why I'm always rejected for the electronic check.
My credit report is normal and has nothing untoward on it.

opinions4u

I should also add that the numbers accepted for electronic verification seem to vary between about 50% and 70%. So around a third of the population still have to comply with more traditional ID requirements. Flat numbers, funny postcodes and not on voters roll are important parts of the fail numbers.